On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 02:21:03AM +0000, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: > On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:24:11PM -0200, Carlos Donizete Froes wrote: > + * New upstream release > + * Switch to compat level 10 > + * debian/control: > + + Build-Depends: libgl1-mesa-dev, mesa-common-dev > + + Architecture: 'any-amd64' and 'any-i386' > + + Changed homepage link > + + Bump debhelper compat to 10 > + + Declare compliance with Debian Policy: 4.1.1 > + * Updated debian/copyright > + * Updated d/upstream/metadata > + * Updated debian/osmose-emulator.6 > + * Changed debian/install > + * debian/rules: Added line DEB_LDFLAGS_MAINT_APPEND > + * debian/tests: Add autopkgtest smoke tests to verify the commands will run > + * Updated debian/watch > > Uploaded as-is, mostly because I don't know whether I'd be able to stop > testing soon enough if I had to review it again. > > Still, it'd be nice if you could explain why the architecture restriction.
Looks like it's wrong: The only point in writing "any-amd64 any-i386" instead of "amd64 i386 x32" (it's pretty unobvious any-amd64 includes x32 but it does) would be to allow non-linux architectures like kfreebsd-* or hurd-*. But, the build on these failed because of <linux/joystick.h> which make it pretty obvious this version has no support for non-linux. I don't know whether making it work is a matter of a simple #ifdef or something with more effort. Also, was the package actually broken on non-x86? (Beside failing to build on 32-bit ARM because of QT's gles brain damage.) When uploading, I assumed the Architecture: line changes came from at least rudimentary testing, but I see this was not the case. Thus, could you please tell us what was the reason? Meow! -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Laws we want back: Poland, Dz.U. 1921 nr.30 poz.177 (also Dz.U. ⣾⠁⢰⠒⠀⣿⡁ 1920 nr.11 poz.61): Art.2: An official, guilty of accepting a gift ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ or another material benefit, or a promise thereof, [in matters ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ relevant to duties], shall be punished by death by shooting.
